Discourse Prominence in Matthew 20,1-16 43 with the understanding that the aorist tense describes a punctiliar, completed action; the imperfect tense describes a continuous, past ac- tion; the present tense describes a process that is currently taking place; the perfect tense describes an action that has come to completion but whose effects are felt in the present; and the pluperfect tense describes an action that has been completed whose effects are being felt at a time after the completion but before the time of the speaker6. Contrary to this customary approach, Porter understands three primary ways of viewing processes that fall into the following aspectual categories: perfective as- pect (aorist tense); imperfective aspect (present/imperfect tense); stative aspect (perfect/pluperfect tense). The perfective aspect (aorist tense) is the aspect that portrays a process that is complete; viewing the process irrespective of the way the process has unfolded. The imperfective aspect (present/imperfect tense) portrays an action as in progress, unfolding from the author’s perspective. The stative aspect (perfect/pluperfect ten- se) is understood as reflecting a state of affairs7. 2.1. Verbal Aspect and Discourse Prominence In addition to expressing the author’s notion of a process apart from ti- me and Aktionsart, there is growing recognition that aspect can function to indicate levels of prominence in a text. There has been a significant amount of interest given to the subject of prominence in discourse as a notion that is associated with the flow of data and how the status of data changes throughout a discourse8. Porter describes verbal aspect as 6 Cf. Robertson, A Grammar; F. Blass, A. Debrunner, R. W. Funk, Greek Grammar; Wallace, Greek Grammar. 7 In the remaining portion of this study I will continue to use the term “tense”, but its use will only be to reference the verbal endings (“tense forms”) rather than reference temporal values (i.e., past, present, or future). Porter, Idioms, 21-22. Within the scope of Porter’s understanding of verbal aspect theory, he assumes that the future tense is used to express expectation. Porter further explains that the future is not fully aspectual and therefore aspectually vague. Also see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 438. For a recent study of the question of aspect (especially with reference to the perfect tense form) see C. R Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative (New York 2007). 8 For studies on prominence in discourse see H.A. Dry, “Foregrounding: An As- sessment”, in W. Merrifield and S. J. J. Hwang (eds.), Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre (Dallas 1992) 435-50; P. J. Hopper, “Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,” in T. Givón (ed.), Discourse and Syntax (New York 1979) 213-41; P. J. Hopper, “Aspect Between Discourse and Grammar: An Introductory Essay for this Volume,” in P. J. Hopper (ed.), Tense Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (Amsterdam 1982) 1-18; R.E. Longacre, “Discourse Peak as a Zone of Turbulence,” in J. R. Wurth (ed.), Be- yond the Sentence: Discourse and Sentential Form (Ann Arbor 1985) 81-98; S. Wallace, “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationship of Linguistic Categories,” in P. J. Hopper (ed.),